ORDER (Per : C.C. Pant, Member) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.06.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, allowing the consumer complaint No. 72/2003 and directing the insurer - appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,49,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 8% p.a. from 16.04.2003 till the date of actual payment and further to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant - respondent was the owner of a Mahendra and Mahendra "Voyager", bearing registration No. UP-07-G-6256. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant - insurer for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the period from 14.05.2000 to 13.05.2001. The vehicle was stolen in the night of 28th/29th April, 2001 from Shiv Murti, Haridwar. A report to this effect was lodged with the police on 29.04.2001 and the insurer - appellant was also informed on the same day. When no action was taken by the police, the complainant submitted an application dated 29.12.2001 to Thana Haridwar. On the said application, the police registered a case under Section 379 I.P.C. The police, after investigation, submitted its final report, which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. As alleged by the complainant, he again lodged a claim with the insurer - appellant on 23.07.2002, but the insurer-appellant did not settle his claim. Ultimately, the complainant was informed vide insurer's letter dated 26.03.2003 that his claim has been repudiated. Upon this, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was allowed by the District Forum per impugned order dated 15.06.2006, as stated above. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the insurer-appellant has filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant had lodged the FIR with the police on 29.12.2001 and that the claim was preferred for the first time on 23.07.2002, whereas the theft had occurred on 28/29.04.2001. Learned counsel argued that the complainant's statement regarding the submission of his claim on 29.04.2001 is baseless and without any evidence. Learned counsel argued that it is wrong to say that the claim application had been lost or misplaced in the insurer's office. Learned counsel further argued that no evidence was submitted by the complainant that a report was lodged with the police on 29.04.2001. Learned counsel argued that it is wrong to say that the claim application had been lost or misplaced in the insurer's office. Learned counsel further argued that no evidence was submitted by the complainant that a report was lodged with the police on 29.04.2001. Learned counsel argued that the appellant-insurer had rightly repudiated the complainant's claim on the ground that the theft was not proved and the intimation of the theft was not given to the appellant-insurer within the specified time. Moreover, the FIR was lodged much after the incident of the theft had taken place. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions : (i) The decision of this Commission dated 25.05.2007 in First Appeal No. 168/2005; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Chandan Singh. (ii) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh and another; III (2006) CPJ 240 (NC) (iii) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Devendra Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others; III (2003) CPJ 77 (NC). 4. In all the above-mentioned cases, the FIR was lodged much after the date of the incident. 5. In reply to the appellant's contentions, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had reported to the police in respect of the said theft on 29.04.2001 and this fact has been admitted by the surveyor, who had conducted the investigation on the directions of the appellant, in his report (Paper No. 37 to 40). The surveyor has clearly stated in his report that he had gone through the records of the concerned police station and found that the police authorities had lodged the case in the GD/Roznamcha on 29.04.2001. It is also stated in the report that later on, the police had registered the case vide FIR No. 281/2001 as Crime Case No. 824/2001 under Section 379 I.P.C. on 19.12.2001. Learned counsel for the complainant urged that the order of the District Forum is just and is fit to be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspect of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant urged that the order of the District Forum is just and is fit to be upheld. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspect of the case. 7. In our view, the contention of the complainant that the incident of theft was reported to the police on 29.04.2001 is tenable because the same has been verified by the surveyor in his report. The report of the surveyor is, in fact, the appellant's own document and the appellant cannot deny it. The cases referred above by the learned counsel for the appellant generally relate to such cases of theft, where the FIR was lodged much after the date of incident. In the present case, it is proved that the complainant had reported to the police regarding the theft of the vehicle on the very next day of the incident. If the complainant could report to the police promptly on the very next day of the incident, we have reason to believe that the insurer-appellant was also intimated on the same day. The letter dated 23.07.2002 of the complainant was, in fact, a reminder to his original claim letter. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the District Forum in this respect is right and just. However, we feel that the amount awarded by the District Forum is on a higher side. The vehicle was insured on 14.05.2000 for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The theft had occurred on 28/29.04.2001, i.e., after 11 months of the insurance. As such, the District Forum should have considered the depreciated value of the vehicle on 29.04.2001 before awarding the compensation. A depreciation of Rs. 1,000/-, as made by the District Forum, is not correct. At least, a depreciation of 5% must be made for calculating the depreciated value of the vehicle on the date of the incident. Similarly, if the interest has been awarded, it is not justifiable to award additional compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum also seems to be on the higher side. In our view, cost of Rs. 2,000/- should be proper and just. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 9. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment. The cost of litigation awarded by the District Forum also seems to be on the higher side. In our view, cost of Rs. 2,000/- should be proper and just. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal succeed partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 9. Appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 15.06.2006 of the District Forum is modified and the appellant-insurer is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,32,500/- as compensation for the loss of the vehicle together with interest @ 8% from 16.04.2003 till the date of actual payment and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. Cost of the appeal made easy.